The politics of war are endlessly fascinating. Especially as they concern the party which set itself up as the party of "Long War" after 9/11.
Republican politicians are beginning to follow their voters as their voters shift away in recent months from their staunch backing for the war in Afghanistan, as I discussed last month on the Huffington Post. But Republican pols are driving their voters against the Libyan War, even though the cost and exposure are minuscule in comparison.
The net effect for Barack Obama is real trouble, as he finds popular support for both the Afghan War and the Libyan War has plummeted. Even though most Democratic voters still support his far more limited mission working with European and Arab allies in Libya, it's the newfound opposition from Republicans that accounts for his Libya operation now being opposed by a national plurality.
Republican members of Congress, joining with some left-liberals, are making trouble for President Barack Obama on Libya.
Now new Republican Senator Ron Johnson is stalling a Senate vote next week in favor of authorizing Obama's Libyan mission.
It's just the latest example of how Republican politicians, especially in the House, have joined much of the Democratic left in attacking Obama on Libya.
Some three months after the United Nations sanctioned the Libyan War to protect civilians and rebels and push back against longtime dictator Moammar Gaddafi, support for the effort in the US has moved from positive to negative.
A Gallup Poll last week shows that a 47-37 edge in favor in March has shifted to 39-46 opposed in June.
The good news for the Obama Administration is that this is a low-intensity conflict from an American standpoint, with the US having shifted to a backseat role after the first week-and-a-half of hostilities.
Which is, paradoxically, one of the reasons why the war is now unpopular. Without the oomph of what The Economist calls "the U.S. cavalry," the Europeans who wanted the war are struggling to mount an effective effort.
But the UN aims have been achieved, despite the big picture impasse. Which is nonetheless slowly turning against Gaddafi.
Ironically, it may be sheer partisan politics that drives this polling result.
Most Democratic voters favor the Libyan War, though many activists and politicians are vehemently opposed. Independents have moved somewhat against, due to the fact that Gaddafi is still around and it's still going on.
Democrats favored Obama's move on Libya, 51-34 in March, and 54-35 in late June.
It's the big Republican shift against the Libyan War, driven by Republican politicians using it to attack Obama -- frequently criticizing him for not doing more as well as for doing too much -- that accounts for the turnaround in national opinion.
The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi and two of his closest associates for crimes against humanity.
Americans are more likely to say they disapprove than approve of the U.S. military action in Libya. That represents a shift from three months ago, just after the mission began, when approval exceeded disapproval. ...Democrats are the only political group to show more support for than opposition to the U.S. involvement. Independents are the most likely to show opposition, with a majority disapproving.
Republicans' opinions have changed the most since March, moving to 39% approval from 57%. This likely reflects increased criticism of the mission's legality and cost from some Republican congressional leaders and presidential candidates. Independents' views have become slightly more negative over the last three months, while Democrats' opinions have been largely stable. ...
Last week's highly political moves against Obama in the House on Libya resulted in a wash. The House did not provide its imprimatur for the US mission in Libya. With left-liberal Democrats upset and right-wing Republicans looking for a way to slap the president, legislation to authorize the mission for the next year was overwhelmingly defeated.
But anti-war forces failed to pass a bill to cut funding for the Libyan mission. That's the real question. Of course, even if they had, they would have to get the Senate to go along with them, and that would not happen.
This week the Senate took up Libya in hearings. 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain moved legislation supporting the intervention, which cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 14 to 5 vote.
Not surprisingly, the Libyan government has rejected arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court for Gaddafi, his son, and his intelligence chief on charges of crimes against humanity.
That's the bill the Wisconsin Republican Senator Johnson is stalling, using Senate procedure. Which means that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will have to hold a procedural vote first to the clear the way for the vote on the authorization.
Meanwhile, in Libya itself, the regime has rejected arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court for longtime dictator Moammar Gaddafi, his son and protege Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, and the regime's intelligence chief. They are charged with multiple crimes against humanity for their attacks on peaceful protesters during the early days of pro-democracy demonstrations in Libya, and for their attacks on civilians later during the uprising.
The ICC is using these arrest warrants as examples of what can happen to more Gaddafi associates if they don't help hasten the Brother Leader from power.
While Republican voters have dramatically shifted against Obama's Libyan operation, and are shifting away from support for the Afghan War, what they've shifted to so far is a state of confusion. Which accounts for the contradictory things Republican presidential candidates have been saying.
A new Gallup Poll finds widespread support for Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
But only a 43% plurality backs his specific near-term plan of withdrawing 10,000 by the end of this year, and another 23,000 by the end of summer 2012.
That's because 29% want him to withdraw more troops in the near term. And 19% want him to withdraw fewer.
The fact that only a fifth of the country thinks that Obama is being too aggressive in his withdrawal plans accounts for the movement among Republican presidential candidates, who are sounding much more dovish than they did a year ago.
The slight majority of Democrats, 57%, say the 30,000 figure is about right; however -- in line with vocal criticism of the plan from Rep. Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats who want a more aggressive drawdown -- 30% call it too low.Independents' reactions are more closely divided: 40% call it about right, 33% too low, and 18% too high. Republicans are the most fractured of all, with about a third saying the withdrawal figure is about right, a third calling it too high, and 20% too low. ...
All these things seemed so much simpler for Republicans during the first Bush/Cheney term. The USA would roll in, kick ass, and move on to the next objective.
But the world is far more complicated than that.
You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
William Bradley Huffington Post Archive
Apparently Obama proceeds with the same paradigm going to war where some of the complications are self imposed due to the PC way of doing so called "kick ass".
Did an action of the Democrat Party do good?
Yes - then they get full and exclusive credit
No - they were tricked into it (somehow) by those dirty Republicans, shame on...the Republicans!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
http://www.dlc.org/
Versus the Real Progressives, the Liberals, the Progressive Caucus
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/
Read their budget! It's the only one that solves the problems.
How could it happen?
lol
****BTW I am against the Libyan war and all the wars in the Middle East.
We are not going to change the culture, religion, or form of government by force....those countries have to do it themselves.
The only reason we are probably there is the oil (control, imperialism).
Please, get your history straight.
lol
I think that many people who voted for Obama in 2008 have unrealistic expectations in some areas. And, in other areas, such as Afghanistan, they conveniently forget what Obama ran on. These same voters, by the way, also suffer from a kind of amnesia when it comes to the magnitude and severity of the global financial crisis.
In any event, these voters need to embrace reality.
Who said that?
He's not doing anything on foreign policy he didn't say he was going to do while he was running for president.
Why mention costs? If costs are an issue then we should withdraw from Afghanistan but not Libya because it costs more in one place not the other?
The issue is protecting our national interests, which the war with Libya does not threaten in the least and there is 'miniscule' evidence Obama's nutty escalated war in Afghanistan is doing anything to serve the national interest, but is being used to satisfy his being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, i.e. a total Narcissist.
"It ain't rocket science, unless you are a liberal."
There are books that support the war, solely on the basis of what democrats have said in the past about Iraq. Not a 'slam dunk' argument, but certainly an argument where reasonable democrats, could disagree about going to war.
The problem is that we never did go to war in Iraq i.e. we did not heed Colin Powell's warning that when you go to war, you find them, cut them off and kill them, clearly adopting General Sherman's tactics of bombing the cities where the women and children live, (done with Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima etc.) and not just shoot and kill only when you believe beyond a reasonable doubt someone is an 'enemy'.
Secondly, to fight and win a real war (three years tops) and do what Sherman and Powell have suggested would have taken a minimum of 650,000 troops on the ground engaging in a total out and out (air and ground) war until they capitulated and then oversee their installing a government that reflected their culture, (see Japan and Germany) but live and work with the rest of the world in peace. Once we leave, their nutty religious leaders will take over.
>>> Using NATO is a joke! We are NATO!
lol
Also, to answer your question about what the goal in Libya is, you should go back and read UN Security Council Resolution 1973. You should also learn about the very unique set of circumstances that coalesced around the Libya mission to understand why the UN sanctioned it and why the US led it and then handed off that lead to NATO.
The UN does not set US policy.
The UN resolution make no case for our going to war with Libya to protect our national interest.
The President has no authority to wage war without getting approval from Congress unless exigent circumstances exists - but at some point he has to get authority or face defunding or impeachment.
I am no safer today by having gone to war with Libya. If anything, our going to war with Libya probably increased slightly, the chance of turning some screwed up nut cake, into joining a terrorist organization. If such person lives in the U.S., then I am most certainly not safer as a result of going to war with Libya.
If you think the US handed it off to NATO, let's just say, you are bit naive. No US involvement (direct or indirect) - no NATO - and certainly no war with Libya.